This all started Tuesday as voters in Utah and Arizona were going to the polls, when Trump tweeted, then erased, and then tweeted again a missile against Cruz: “Lyin’ Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin’ Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!”

Trump was referring to a Facebook ad of a risqué shot of a nude Melania Trump lying on some furs that was featured years ago in GQ, complete with a tagline: “Meet Melania Trump. Your next First Lady. Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” The ad, run by an outside group backing Cruz, was clearly meant to target Mormon voters in Utah leery of Trump’s three marriages, his most recent to supermodel Melania, 26 years his junior.

Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!

Cruz won Utah with 69% of the vote; Trump came in third with 14% after Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 16% — which is perhaps why on Wednesday Trump retweeted a supporter’s tweet which showed a snarling Heidi Cruz’s face next to a gorgeous shot of Melania with this tag line: “No need to ‘Spill the beans,’ the images are worth a thousand words.”

Cruz defended his wife on Twitter and at a press conference called Trump a “sniveling coward” for attacking women. “Donald does seem to have an issue with women. Donald doesn’t like strong women,” Cruz said. “Real men don’t try to bully women. That’s not an action of strength. That’s an action of weakness. It’s an action of fear. It’s an action of a small and petty man who is intimidated by strong women.” Though, notably. When repeatedly pressed, Cruz refused to rule out supporting Trump, who has a lead of 274 pledged delegates, if he becomes the eventual nominee.

The latest exchange is just another example of Trump’s small hands tizzy, says Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. “Instead of responding to the attack on Melania from the anti-Trump PAC by calling it out for the misogyny it represents, Trump played into the same type of objectification of women by endorsing a response that placed his wife’s — and Heidi Cruz’s — value in appearance alone,” Dittmar said. “This back-and-forth is yet another display of both men seeking to reinforce their masculinity in different ways, whether by — in Trump’s case — competing to be the candidate with the hottest wife, or — in Cruz’s case — by embodying the role of protector and defender of his family.”

Indeed, Cruz — who notably did not call for the Melania ad to be taken down — is no stranger to using his wife as a political prop. When he first announced his candidacy for president, he spent more time talking about Heidi’s baking talents than he did her highly successful Goldman Sachs banking career.

Cruz, seeking to burnish his social conservative credentials, buries his wife’s success behind her role of mother and supporter, says Michelle Swers, a professor at Georgetown University who studies women in politics. “In this anti-Wall Street climate her association with Goldman Sachs will be questioned,” Swers says. “As more women are in the workforce the careers of potential First Ladies will be scrutinized.”

A March Reuters/Ipsos poll found that half of all women had a “very unfavorable” view of Trump, up from 40% in a similar survey conducted in October. And a December Quinnipiac poll found both Trump and Cruz underwater with women in favorable/unfavorable standings.

A Republican presidential candidate has not won the women’s vote since Ronald Reagan. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush only won the White House by mitigating the loss of women, who turn out on average 10 percent more than male voters, to the single digits. That gap would likely prove more difficult to close if Hillary Clinton becomes the first female nominee fielded by either party.

Especially if the Republican debate on women is limited to who’s prettier and how good a baker one’s wife is.

This all started Tuesday as voters in Utah and Arizona were going to the polls, when Trump tweeted, then erased, and then tweeted again a missile against Cruz: “Lyin’ Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin’ Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!”

Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!

Trump was referring to a Facebook ad of a risqué shot of a nude Melania Trump lying on some furs that was featured years ago in GQ, complete with a tagline: “Meet Melania Trump. Your next First Lady. Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” The ad, run by an outside group backing Cruz, was clearly meant to target Mormon voters in Utah leery of Trump’s three marriages, his most recent to supermodel Melania, 26 years his junior.

Cruz won Utah with 69% of the vote; Trump came in third with 14% after Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 16% — which is perhaps why on Wednesday Trump retweeted a supporter’s tweet which showed a snarling Heidi Cruz’s face next to a gorgeous shot of Melania with this tag line: “No need to ‘Spill the beans,’ the images are worth a thousand words.”

Cruz defended his wife on Twitter and at a press conference called Trump a “sniveling coward” for attacking women. “Donald does seem to have an issue with women. Donald doesn’t like strong women,” Cruz said. “Real men don’t try to bully women. That’s not an action of strength. That’s an action of weakness. It’s an action of fear. It’s an action of a small and petty man who is intimidated by strong women.” Though, notably. When repeatedly pressed, Cruz refused to rule out supporting Trump, who has a lead of 274 pledged delegates, if he becomes the eventual nominee.

The latest exchange is just another example of Trump’s small hands tizzy, says Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. “Instead of responding to the attack on Melania from the anti-Trump PAC by calling it out for the misogyny it represents, Trump played into the same type of objectification of women by endorsing a response that placed his wife’s — and Heidi Cruz’s — value in appearance alone,” Dittmar said. “This back-and-forth is yet another display of both men seeking to reinforce their masculinity in different ways, whether by — in Trump’s case — competing to be the candidate with the hottest wife, or — in Cruz’s case — by embodying the role of protector and defender of his family.”

Indeed, Cruz — who notably did not call for the Melania ad to be taken down — is no stranger to using his wife as a political prop. When he first announced his candidacy for president, he spent more time talking about Heidi’s baking talents than he did her highly successful Goldman Sachs banking career.

Cruz, seeking to burnish his social conservative credentials, buries his wife’s success behind her role of mother and supporter, says Michelle Swers, a professor at Georgetown University who studies women in politics. “In this anti-Wall Street climate her association with Goldman Sachs will be questioned,” Swers says. “As more women are in the workforce the careers of potential First Ladies will be scrutinized.”

A March Reuters/Ipsos poll found that half of all women had a “very unfavorable” view of Trump, up from 40% in a similar survey conducted in October. And a December Quinnipiac poll found both Trump and Cruz underwater with women in favorable/unfavorable standings.

A Republican presidential candidate has not won the women’s vote since Ronald Reagan. George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush only won the White House by mitigating the loss of women, who turn out on average 10 percent more than male voters, to the single digits. That gap would likely prove more difficult to close if Hillary Clinton becomes the first female nominee fielded by either party.

Especially if the Republican debate on women is limited to who’s prettier and how good a baker one’s wife is.

–Jay Newton-Small is the author of the recently published book, “Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing the Way America Works,” available on amazon.com or at book stores everywhere.

We all handle money differently. But the way husbands and wives handle their finances needs to change. Financial planner Valerie Adelman says that even though the wife tend to be the spouse who pays the bills and manages the household budget, she usually isn’t included when it comes to big financial decisions affecting the whole family. That job, most of the time, falls to the husband. And that, Adelman states, is what needs to change.

The easiest way for husbands and wives to talk about money and their finances is when they fill out their tax return for the year. Women need to be included because they need to learn their way around the finance world.

]]>http://time.com/money/4129441/how-should-husbands-and-wives-handle-their-finances/feed/0husbands and wivesIndian Court Says Muslims Are ‘Misusing’ the Quran for Polygamyhttp://time.com/4102443/india-muslims-quran-polygamy-court/
http://time.com/4102443/india-muslims-quran-polygamy-court/#respondFri, 06 Nov 2015 03:14:19 +0000http://time.com/?p=4102443]]>A top court in India ruled Thursday that the country’s Muslims were misusing their holy book, the Quran, in order to have more than one wife.

The Gujarat High Court said Islam’s provision of polygamy was being misused by men for “selfish reasons,” the Press Trust of India news agency reports.

The court was hearing a petition from a Muslim man who wanted to dismiss a police complaint by his wife accusing him of marrying another woman without her consent. Although he said Muslim personal law allowed one to have up to four wives, the court said the country must embrace a uniform civil code.

Muslims make up roughly 10% of the population of the state of Gujarat, which was the scene of communal violence in 2002 that led to the deaths of hundreds of Muslims, including many women and children.

]]>http://time.com/4102443/india-muslims-quran-polygamy-court/feed/0200142145-001Article on How Wives Can Keep Husbands Happy Is Going Viralhttp://time.com/3630603/familyshare-destroying-your-family-husbands/
http://time.com/3630603/familyshare-destroying-your-family-husbands/#respondThu, 11 Dec 2014 21:18:15 +0000http://time.com/?p=3630603&xid=newsletter-life-weekly]]>An article entitled “5 Ways You Are Unknowingly Destroying Your Husband and Killing Your Marriage,” published on FamilyShare.com is going viral, with almost five million views so far.

Here are the five ways women can fail their husbands, according to author Katelyn Carmen:

1) Having expensive taste: Carmen says “Wives, show sincere appreciation and respect to your husband by carefully following a budget and making the most of what you have.”

2) Being grumpy: “As soon as your husband walks through the door, you launch into action and dump every negative and angry thought that’s crossed your mind throughout the day… Negativity is draining. Men like to fix things, and constantly being hounded with complaints makes it difficult for him to help solve your pains.

3) Not putting your husband first: “When your children, mom, best friends, talents, or career in front of your husband, you send a clear message to him that he is unimportant.”

4) Withholding sex: “Sex should not be used as a tool to control your spouse; it should be viewed as a sacred tool to draw you closer to one another and to God…Even though you might not always be in the mood, it’s worth it to give in (when you can) and spend that time bonding.”

5) Being coy: “Don’t waste your time giving subtle hints that he won’t understand: Speak plainly to him. Be honest about your feelings, and don’t bottle things up until you burst. If he asks you what’s wrong, don’t respond with “nothing” and then expect him to read your mind and emotions.”

The article has clearly struck a chord, judging from the millions of page views and shares.

Most of the criticism seems to be aimed at the fact that the article is specifically telling women how to please their husbands, and not the other way around, though the author does state at the top of the piece that the same advice could apply to men who want to make their wives happy.

]]>http://time.com/3630603/familyshare-destroying-your-family-husbands/feed/0460692789Cheaters’ Dating Site Ashley Madison Spied on Its Usershttp://time.com/3120241/ashley-madison-cheaters-site-spies-on-its-users/
http://time.com/3120241/ashley-madison-cheaters-site-spies-on-its-users/#respondSat, 16 Aug 2014 04:01:55 +0000http://time.com/?p=3120241]]>In a study to be presented at the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco on Saturday Aug. 16, Eric Anderson, a professor at the University of Winchester in England claims that women who seek extra-marital affairs usually still love their husbands and are cheating instead of divorcing, because they need more passion. “It is very clear that our model of having sex and love with just one other person for life has failed— and it has failed massively,” says Anderson.

How does he know this? Because he spied on the conversations women were having on Ashley Madison, a website created for the purpose of having an affair. Professor Anderson, who as it turns out is a the “chief science officer” at Ashley Madison, looked at more than 4,000 conversations that 100 women were having with potential paramours. “I monitored their conversation with men on the website, without their knowing that I was monitoring and analyzing their conversations,” he says. “The men did not know either.”

Now, let’s put aside for one second that it’s mighty convenient for a guy paid by a website that promotes cheating among married people to publish a study that finds that cheating probably doesn’t hurt marriages. Let’s put aside too, as a probable clerical error, that the study’s press release calls Anderson a professor of masculinity, sexuality, and sport, but the University of Winchester website lists him merely as Professor of Sports Studies, and that seven of his 10 books are about sports and only one is about relationships.

And while we’re putting things aside, let’s also overlook the fact that in seeking to find out how women feel about their marriages, he drew his subjects entirely from a website that women visit specifically to cheat. And from conversations among people who were seeking to be anonymous and who had ample reason to be less than candid. Almost by definition, any user of Ashley Madison is lying to someone: either her husband, which draws her honesty into question, and/or other users of Ashley Madison, which makes the data highly suspect. Or she has an open marriage, in which case she is not a good subject for a study on cheating.

When asked how he adjusts his figures for this selection bias, Anderson’s answer is simple. “I don’t,” he says. “Most of our knowledge of women who cheat comes from another population via selection bias, those in counselors’ offices. My method is the best way we can do this. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we have.” That’s a lot of caveats for a guy who also says he wants the study “to help unravel the stranglehold that our culture has on sex and love.”

Even if we overlook that whole pile of problems, or get around it somehow since it’s a little large to look over, then we still have the basic problem with this study that this guy spied on Ashley Madison users to get his data. He covertly monitored the conversations of people who had come to the website in order to ensure their privacy.

Anderson’s data “included profile information that the women supplied when they signed up for the site (information not made available to other Ashley Madison users)” he writes in the study, as well as information other users could see. “We also acquired all private message conversations that [users] had with men on the website for one month.” Were the users aware that every intimate thing they said in the course of finding an affair partner might be made available to Professors of Sports Studies? Well, sort of. Back when they registered for the site, it was in the terms and conditions. Because everybody reads the user agreement carefully, of course.

Anderson, who likes to use the term “monoganism,” as if mutually agreed fidelity were a cult of some sort, maintains that one of the reasons monogamy is becoming such an imposition on modern couples is a condition he calls “relative sexual deprivation.” His theory is that people feel sexually deprived because thanks to the internet, everybody’s aware that there are many more opportunities to get some nooky that monogamous couples have to let slide. “Individuals evaluate their own standing by comparing their current position with those who have more,” he writes. “Women may therefore look at their monogamous relationships and consider themselves sexually deprived in comparison to what they see occurring in today’s sexualized culture.”

To recap: women want to cheat, not because they don’t love their spouses, but because the internet makes them feel like they’re not getting enough sex and also gives them so many more opportunities to cheat. Places, like, say, Ashley Madison. Which is totally the place you should go, apparently, if you both love your husband and wish to be spied on.

]]>http://time.com/3120241/ashley-madison-cheaters-site-spies-on-its-users/feed/0200417126-001The Real Problem With Women as the Family Breadwinnerhttp://time.com/87890/fox-news-female-breadwinner/
http://time.com/87890/fox-news-female-breadwinner/#respondMon, 05 May 2014 20:03:33 +0000http://time.com/?p=87890]]>Watching the recent kerfuffle over whether it’s sexist to think that marriages might be threatened when wives make more than husbands is a bit like watching a person trying to change a flat on a bus that’s on fire. Everybody’s avoiding the main issue.

In almost a quarter of marriages in the U.S., wives earn more than husbands. This is a huge, fourfold-sized shift from a half-century ago. And the effects on intimate human relations of this realignment in bacon bringing are still shaking out. The prognostications follow one of two narratives: either husbands’ egos — and thus the American family — will be annihilated; or men will eventually learn to stop holding women back and everyone will be better, more equal and richer than before.

A recent Fox news segment rehearsed the first theory, asking a series of young telegenic types if marriage would be destroyed by alpha females and their earning capacity. “Isn’t there some sort of biological, innate need for men to be the caveman?” asked Fox’s Clayton Morris. “Go out and bring home the dinner …?” The segment was roundly scoffed at by media commenters for being hopelessly outdated and antiwoman. “Men at Fox continued to justify their position that female breadwinners marked a breakdown in society,” wrote Emily Arrowood at Media Matters.

But the data, such as it is, tends to support the view, crudely put by Morris, that men find not being the breadwinner a little unsteadying. Pew research shows that most Americans still believe that having a mother at home and a father at work is the best arrangement for raising a family. And it’s true that men’s self-esteem is very much tied up in their ability to do well at work and to make money. Studies have found that men are more likely to cheat and feel worse about themselves when their wives make more than they do.

The anxiety all this generates is at the center of financial journalist Farnoosh Torabi’s new book When She Makes More. “The cold reality about making a relationship work when there’s an unusual income disparity,” she writes, “is that it takes a lot more effort than relationships with no or a traditional income disparity.” Torabi’s book offers a bunch of tips for high-earning wives-to-be, including being very open about their remunerative status, letting men pay the bill at the restaurant even if the women pay the credit-card bill later and sharing a bank account.

Torabi is pregnant, which is lovely for her, but she is in for one helluva shock. (She’s also been married for almost two full years, so it’s impressive that she’s already written a book about being a wife.) Meanwhile, the “marriage experts” on the Fox show probably had a cumulative age of less than 75. All of them, well-meaning as they were, are ignorant of the real issue, which is that the breadwinner problems are less about how much money any one spouse makes and more about what they do with that other resource, time.

But then, how could it be otherwise? Few people are prepared for the ferocity with which children siphon up every available resource in terms of time, money and brain space. It’s easy to be magnanimous and reasonable when every evening is available and every dollar disposable. Husbands and wives can discuss their finances at a leisurely pace over old-fashioneds in a local boîte. Mothers and fathers, on the other hand, usually find they take up the subject in enraged whispers around bedtime after they’ve discovered that the credit-card bill has gone unpaid yet again.

Women, studies show, are still bearing the brunt of child rearing and housework. This is not always because the dads are lazy; sometimes well-educated and competent women decline to delegate child-rearing responsibilities to other people. But either way, the marital-financial equation is exponentially harder to solve when there are offspring. And there’s less time to solve it and less room for error or experimentation. As divorce lawyers know, many ex-wives feel that if they were making most of the money and doing most of the child rearing and homekeeping, there was very little point in having a husband.

And many ex-husbands, who probably easily managed to get past the fact that their wives earned more, did not believe their lower salary then meant they had to do more on the homefront, especially if they worked just as hard as their better-paid wife. The data suggests two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, but the data does not show what the husbands did that might have led the wives to call their lawyers.

If we’re going to have an honest discussion about breadwinning women, it can’t just be a rational discussion about the wisest ways to divide up dollars. It has to be about time as well. And I’m happy to lead it off. Right after I get back from dealing with whatever my kids’ school called me about now.